Hacker News Reader

Comment by haolez | Hacker News Reader

Thus... dark matter?

No. Because dark matter is understood mostly to be less interacting matter. Don't think it's a ball of dark stuff, think something you couldn't even see

Whereas he's proposing regular (dark as in color) matter

> Whereas he's proposing regular (dark as in color) matter

Wouldn't that kind of matter be easily detectable because it would block EM radiation, including visible light?

Yes. "Dark" is misleading, it should be "sparsely-interacting" or something. Well, MACHOs would have been dark in the traditional sense as well. Generally, "we would have seen it" excludes a lot of dark matter candidates, thats what actually makes it "dark"

That's my understanding as well.

Isn't dark matter something like a shadow DOM.. It's there but also not there?

Edit! Wow really feeling the love on this comment

What I mean is dark matter is different from matter we just can't detect, it's matter that should be there but we can't seem to find it

It's pretty simple: Dark Matter can't be seen or felt. It probably just travels through regular matter without "colliding", muchlike neutrinos.

It only interacts with other matter through gravity.

Now, we can detect gravity, but only for fairly big and stationary objects. If DM is tiny particles travelling fast, we can only detect aggregate effects on galaxy level.

Yes just like we can't detect the shadow DOM from the DOM but it's really there you know? I feel like my thinking is too orthogonal any more.

There's a difference between matter that's there which we can't detect as opposed to matter which isn't there which we can oh geez

Maybe it is similar in that the shadow DOM predicts the state of the actual DOM. In this interpretation dark matter predicts the shape of our universe. It might just be how one should go about simulating a universe..!

If you're making sense, I can't detect it :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com